Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Officiating rumor

Originally Posted by Beau Petard

St.Matt-
Sorry, maybe I should have added more text to my numbers!

---> 16 games each week x 7 officials = 112 officials needed each week
---> 16 week schedule x 112 officials needed each week = 1792 "game officials" (or saying it another way, there are 1792 assignments for the season, not counting a back-up official for each game - the 256 I added - or any playoffs)

What some may take issue with is the amount paid to each official for each game assignment, all 1792 of them. I assumed a back-up official for each game, who may not "work" but has to be available, and assigned him the same pay as each active official for the game. Thus, I added 256 assignments for back-ups for the season to 1792, the total number of assignments for the entire season, or a total of 2048.

Then, being an extremely generous guy, I paid each NFL official the top ANNUAL salary - $141K - of an MLB umpire for EACH GAME. Thus, 2048 assignments (for the NFL regular season) x $141,000 = $288,768,000! That's a shitload of money, yet only amounts to a very "small" % of the NFL's annual gross.

Let's assume that an NFL official only gets $25K per assignment, a sum that seems very generous no matter how you slice it. Multiply 2048 game assignments for the season times 25k, and you get $51.2 million, which is an RCH more than 1/2% of the league's annual gross. Can anyone name ANY US or international business that operates with less than that for overhead and G&A?

What about the shiny new full lifetime pensions for all of these officials? You know the things that are now bankrupting cities all across America right now.

Re: Officiating rumor

T-JF-Show--
I'm sensing an unspoken bias in your posts on this subject. I confess I am unfamiliar with the shiny new full lifetime pensions that you cite. Can you add some detail as to what this entails? On a related note, do you know if the CBA for the players includes any type of pension benefit(s), and I guess the same question for the administrative staffs for teams (for example, do longer term employees for the Ravens have some type of retirement compensation)? I have no idea how that works and maybe there are issues that I'm not considering.

As far as your insinuation that the pensions of NFL officials combined with (I assume) the pensions of other officials across America bankrupting cities, again I'm sensing a bias that is greater than an objective, dispassionate analysis of these issues. If you are implying that pension plans in general are what's "bankrupting American cities", I suspect that's a topic for another forum, but I think your economic analysis on that would be disingenuous.

Re: Officiating rumor

I am starting to think that the leagues end-game here is to bring on full time refs but not pay them what they would make being part time along with their outside of football salaries.

The referees are saying they would go full time if the league would compensate them for the pay cut most of them would take if they abandon their full time gig. The league sees an opportunity for a win-win, bring in full time refs for only slightly more than what they are paying now for part time officials.

For those of you clamoring for the league to "just pay up", be VERY careful what you ask for. Remember that cost is going to get passed right along to you and I. Higher ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc will result if they have to pay some of these guys upwards of $500,000 each a year.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

I am starting to think that the leagues end-game here is to bring on full time refs but not pay them what they would make being part time along with their outside of football salaries.

The referees are saying they would go full time if the league would compensate them for the pay cut most of them would take if they abandon their full time gig. The league sees an opportunity for a win-win, bring in full time refs for only slightly more than what they are paying now for part time officials.

For those of you clamoring for the league to "just pay up", be VERY careful what you ask for. Remember that cost is going to get passed right along to you and I. Higher ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc will result if they have to pay some of these guys upwards of $500,000 each a year.

Your last paragraph is what I forget about when I just want the league to "pay up". You put it in good perspective!

Re: Officiating rumor

I am starting to think that the leagues end-game here is to bring on full time refs but not pay them what they would make being part time along with their outside of football salaries.

The referees are saying they would go full time if the league would compensate them for the pay cut most of them would take if they abandon their full time gig. The league sees an opportunity for a win-win, bring in full time refs for only slightly more than what they are paying now for part time officials.

For those of you clamoring for the league to "just pay up", be VERY careful what you ask for. Remember that cost is going to get passed right along to you and I. Higher ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc will result if they have to pay some of these guys upwards of $500,000 each a year.

We are playing with "big numbers" here and I agree, the ultimate cost will be passed to us...the PSL and season ticket holders. But, run the numbers from a percentage standpoint., not from an Oh my god look how much they are making standpoint (easy to do...I did it myself until you think about it from a percentage standpoint). To try to put it in perspective with percentage of revenue numbers. Refs increase the cost of the league by 3% a year by going full time (too lazy right now to check this after the workday when all I do is run financial numbers...but it is "about right" minus tax deductions for the NFL for employee cost, operating cost, etc...). Divide that out by number of tickets sold in the league throughout the year, television contracts, concessions, parking. To put it simply, pass on the 3% to me and I am cool with it (I realize some people will not be). My ticket price goes from $80.00 a game to $82.40. My parking goes from $40 a game to $41.20. My beer that is way overpriced as it is goes from $8.00 to $8.24. I, as a fan that goes to every game and throws a party at home for every away game (or actually makes the trip). My game day experience basically goes up no more than $7 or $8 (I do my drinking and partying at the lot). I am willing to pay the 3% increase (and I don't think it will be quite that much from a percentage standpoint) for the "regular" refs back in a full time role. Just my two cents...GO RAVENS!

Re: Officiating rumor

Houston-
I need to preface this post with the caveat that I hold neither the league nor the officals (and especially not the players) on a higher moral ground than any of the others.

But I completely agree with your post, in that I most certainly would expect the NFL owners to pass along any extra cost of doing business to the consumer - i.e., the ticket-paying fan - since I believe the TV contract revenue is locked in for several years and couldn't be tapped for more "blood". The issue I take with the owners is, why can they not absorb the cost, and NOT screw the fans? (and I guess I should offer up some type of disclaimer that I know the answer! )

Smart, prudent business owners do not absorb costs. They maximize profits.

The maximization of profits gives the league the ability to do almost limitless things in terms of expanding the brand, innovation, expansion, etc.

Jd345 -- your calculations assume the Refs get a 3% bump. Everything I am reading is they are willing to go full time if their pay covers the loss of income from the other jobs.

Take Ed Hoculi for example. He's a partner in a law firm when he's not wearing the zebra stripes. The NFLRA has the position that he should get paid by the NFL the combined amount of his part time salary and the pay he would lose once they go full time.

$70,000 plus his pay from his law firm, I'd assume would be around $300,000 to $400,000, that's hardly a 3% bump in pay.

Last edited by HoustonRaven; 08-22-2012 at 10:01 PM.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Referee Lockout (Merged)

Smart, prudent business owners do not absorb costs. They maximize profits.

The maximization of profits gives the league the ability to do almost limitless things in terms of expanding the brand, innovation, expansion, etc.

Jd345 -- your calculations assume the Refs get a 3% bump. Everything I am reading is they are willing to go full time if their pay covers the loss of income from the other jobs.

Take Ed Hoculi for example. He's a partner in a law firm when he's not wearing the zebra stripes. The NFLRA has the position that he should get paid by the NFL the combined amount of his part time salary and the pay he would lose once they go full time.

$70,000 plus his pay from his law firm, I'd assume would be around $300,000 to $400,000, that's hardly a 3% bump in pay.

You are right...not a 3% pay bump for "him"...maybe a 300% pay bump for some officials, or even more, but they are individuals in a huge money making system. But forget about that...we can get lost in "individual numbers" for individual refs or all the refs for that matter. The NFL is a money making machine. Look at it as a system, or as a business, and forget about the individual(s) that are in the system. A ref is an employee of the "system". I can give a ref a raise of 300% and it only effects the system at a very low level because they only are a small part of my business as far as the payroll is concerned. Going to play with round numbers here for the sake of simplicity but they are in the realm of reality for the NFL "system." The NFL makes around 9 BILLION dollars in revenue. Lets say we give the refs, as a whole, a 110 million dollar raise (the average payroll of an entire NFL team). They are handomsely paid. Depending on their situation they just received a 300% raise as an individual/group. But they are a small percentage of the system, it is like adding another team to the 32 teams in the league as far as pay. Therefore, we have increased the cost in the system by 1/32, or basically 3% of the system. I will gladly pay 3% for full time competent refs. I agree that we shouldn't have to pay that much for refs...but it is SUPPLY AND DEMAND...or go with replacements...and hopefully they progress to the point our regular refs are at now and they will demand more pay in 3 years becuase of...SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Referee Lockout (Merged)

Houston-
Generally I agree with your comments, but IMHO, "smart, prudent business owners" have been known to absorb costs. And I think they do tend to maximize profits, but usually within a sensible business model. Mr. Bisciotti and the other owners can whine all they want about how the cost of doing business rises each season, but I'd be willing to bet they have folks on their staffs that assess stuff like the "increased ticket price" line across which they do not want to cross lest they start seeing reduced sales.

On yours and jd's comments, I have to ask for your opinions on why the NFLRA thinks that in the real world, a guy should be able to demand and receive the sweetheart deal that you describe in Hoculi's example? I may be overlooking the obvious (and that's often par for my game!), but why would not the NFL just hire "new" guys to officiate under a "fair" compensation system and tell the current batch of moonlighters, "See ya, thanks, and best wishes at your other full-time job?"